032001Regional Analysis of the site diagnosis Site diagnosis evaluation August 2001, by
Web Team

This analysis is part of the preparation for MedWetCoast’s first technical seminar planned from September 17 to 21, 2001 in Zaranik (Egypt).

The analysis aims at evaluating the diagnoses to bring out their strong points, their perfectible points and suggest recommendations for implementation in order to adjust the diagnosis and optimise the coming phases.

Working methodologies :

The working method consisted in comparing what was planned (project documents, terms of reference, initiation missions of international experts) to what was done up until July 15th 2001 (diagnosis reports submitted to the RFU, mail exchange between the project teams and the RFU, evaluation mission reports of the international experts, etc.).
A grid was established to carry out this analysis (cf. annex 1). It was based on the place of the diagnosis in the project documents on one hand and on the content of the diagnosis as it was proposed in the terms of reference on the other hand.
To fill out this grid, we consulted the documents related to the project or to the diagnoses that would help clarify the different points. The list of the documents is available in
Annex 2.
Every analysis is dependent on its framework and on its basic data. We are aware of the limits of the exercise. It would have been obviously preferable to have at our disposal all the diagnosis reports, the consolidated reports in particular, and the evaluation reports for all the countries. It would have also been ideal to have contacts with the diagnosis coordinators and the project teams (and one more month!). It wasn’t the case for different understandable reasons (different diagnosis progress reports depending on the countries, unavailability of reports at the RFU, organization deadline of the seminar, etc.).
However, the elements of synthesis presented here highlight the gaps, noticed or not, between the projected and the achieved. These possible gaps lead to the proposition, when necessary, of recommendations.
Each country is requested to 1- Compare its own experience to the different observations mentioned in this report, 2- complete the analysis and 3- integrate in the work plans the recommendations useful for the improvement of the diagnosis and for the preparation of the other phases. All the observations and recommendations will be discussed and validated during the workshop.